Military

Friday

Daniel Korski

Learning from recent history

With a UN resolution now passed, Prime Minister David Cameron has displayed diplomatic skills his critics believed he did not possess. As NATO is planning to enforce an expansive no-fly zone over Libya, it is worth pausing for a moment to consider such a mission’s aims and to learn the lessons from recent wars. The strategic aim of the mission cannot only be to protect Libyan civilians. Framed in this way, the international community will face the same problems it did Bosnia: for instance, the Srebrenica massacre happened while a no-fly zone was already in place. A no-fly zone will not force Colonel Ghadaffi from power. As troops are not

Thursday

Peter Hoskin

The UN decides to take “all necessary measures” against Gaddafi

“There will be no mercy. Our troops will be coming to Benghazi tonight.” Perhaps it was the murderous threat contained within Gaddafi’s latest radio message that shocked the United Nations into action today — because shocked into action they have been. After sweating and toiling over the precise formulation of a resolution on Libya, the UN Security Council finally reached the voting stage this evening. And it has now voted 10-0 in favour of member states taking “all necessary measures … to protect civilian and populated areas, including Benghazi, while excluding an occupation force.” Brazil, India, China, Russia and — staggeringly — Germany all abstained. What this means, in practice,

Sunday

Fraser Nelson

Cameron’s principled stand over Libya

Slowly, David Cameron seems to be mutating into a hawk over Libya. I’ve been increasingly impressed with the way he has made the case for a no-fly zone – knowing that it is an unpopular cause outside of the Arab world. Since the evacuation chaos, which he apologised for, he has pretty much led calls for some form of military intervention to stop Gaddafi bombing his own people back into submission. He was laughed at to start with; accused of making it up on the hoof. But now the 22-nation Arab League backs this position, as does Sarko. It may have been messy at first – but that’s how these

Saturday

Peter Hoskin

The Arab League adds its weight to the calls for a no-fly zone

We’re pushing for a no-fly zone. France is pushing for a no-fly zone. And now the Arab League is pushing for a no-fly zone too. The news fresh out of Cairo is that the organisation has voted in favour of restricting airspace above Libya. It will now push the UN to do the same, which is a considerably more proactive than the stance it adopted earlier this week. While one vote doesn’t really seal anything, this is potentially a crucial moment. NATO has made regional support a key condition of a no-fly zone – and now it has it, officially. Those who have been sniffing around for alternatives to the

Friday

David Blackburn

The growing clamour for intervention

In the last two days, Nato and European leaders have declared that Gaddafi must go, but both have baulked at taking unilateral action. Their reticence has sparked a response from those in favour of intervention. Speaking in Brussels today, David Cameron said that situation on the ground may be getting worse and that Europe and the West in general “must be ready to act if the situation requires it”. Liberal interventionist Bill Clinton went further. Speaking at the Women in the World summit, he said: “I wouldn’t do it if they [the rebels] hadn’t asked… [But] it’s not a fair fight. They’re being killed by mercenaries. I think we should

Thursday

Daniel Korski

Liberal hawks

From the moment David Cameron started agitating for a no fly-zone, he’s been looking for allies. France and Denmark look like they will support him, with Russia and India opposed and China perhaps willing to abstain at the United Nations. But what about closer to home, inside the coalition? Since the formation of the coalition, every policy has been tested by what will it do for relations between the parties? Oddly, however, there has been no such test about Libyan policy. Newspapers have not been writing about splits, differences and agreements. That may be because Lord Ashdown went on the Today Programme and voiced conditional support for a no-fly zone.

Wednesday

Peter Hoskin

UN or not UN?

The garbled horror stories just keep on rolling out of Libya. According to the latest reports, Gaddafi’s troops have attacked the rebels in Zawiyah with redoubled violence and force. Aircraft, tanks, bombs, mortars – all have been used against the city and its people, with what one assumes are bloody results. As one resident puts it to Reuters, “Zawiyah as you knew it no longer exists.” It is unclear whether the rebels have now lost control there, but that is a strong possibility. Unsurprising, then, that the West is positioning itself to act. David Cameron, we are told, has been speaking with Barack Obama about the full spread of options

Saturday

Daniel Korski

A post-Tunisian Foreign Office

The Foreign Office has come in for a lot of criticism lately, following delays in getting Britons out Libya. Some argue that it is all William Hague’s fault. Others that the department is unfit for purpose. Both of these views seem a bit unfair. The FCO managed to help Britons in Tunisia and Egypt, and only came up short when the company they had used failed to take off for Libya. True, there should have been a better contract in place – which would give the FCO alternatives – but that hardly translates into systemic failure. True, ministerial divisions between Jeremy Browne, in charge of consular affairs, and Alistair Burt,

Daniel Korski

Obama backs Cameron on no-fly zone

Everyone knows that a media narrative is a difficult thing to change. So No.10 must be annoyed that so many newspapers, from the Telegraph to the Independent, are suggesting that David Cameron’s response to the Libya crisis has been “embarrassing,” and rejected by the US. But the Prime Minister would do well to stay the course and ignore the media for a number of reasons. First, just because US Defence Secretary Robert Gates is sceptical about a policy does not mean it is wrong. Somehow, the US Defence Secretary’s words are now taken as gospel in the British media and the PM is meant to repent immediately. Why? So what

Friday

Daniel Korski

Harriet ‘shambolic’ Harman

I’ve spent ten minutes reading the same passage and still don’t understand what it means. It comes from Harriet Harman, quoted in the Independent, criticising the government’s Libya strategy: “The response to the terrible events in Libya has been a shambles. The key to their shambolic response lies in their ideology. If your perspective is that government is a bad thing and you want less of it, you’re not going to be on the front foot when the power of government is exactly what is needed.” Do you get it? Is the Labour MP saying that her party would have harnessed the power of the state, principally the military, and

Daniel Korski

New World temporarily postponed

We are meant to be living in a multi-polar world, one where US power is waning, and where countries reject the prying interference of the West. Except, erm, we aren’t. Today’s world looks exactly as it did yesterday. First, many of the 20th century issues people thought would disappear – dictators, repression and democracy – remain as prevalent now as then. The Iraq War has tempered people’s appetite for humanitarian interventions without extinguishing it. The key difference seems to be that support is now minimal on the Left and still strong on the neo-con Right. Everyone is also still focused on what the US will or will not do, even

Thursday

Peter Hoskin

Cameron caught in the middle

Need a bestiary to tell the hawks from the doves? Then this article (£) in the Times should serve your purpose. It’s an account of Tuesday’s Cabinet meeting on Libya, and the differences of opinion that transpired. Michael Gove, we are told, was “messianic” in his call for a tougher stance against Gaddafi. William Hague, for his part, was considerably more cautious. A graphic alongside the article puts George Osborne, Liam Fox and Andrew Mitchell in the Gove camp, and Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander with Hague. David Cameron, chairman of this diverse board, is said to be “caught in the middle”. The government has since denied that the Cabinet

Tuesday

David Blackburn

Toppling Mad Dog

Should Gaddafi be pushed? That is the question diplomats and policy makers are beginning to ask. The UN has imposed travel restrictions and frozen Gaddafi’s assets. But Gaddafi is resisting the hangman’s noose; the loss of his Mayfair property empire is the merest of inconveniences. And still he fights on. There is now a growing humanitarian case for direct military intervention by Western powers. However, there are plenty of arguments against even introducing a no-fly zone. Gideon Rachman makes some of them in today’s FT: ‘A few of the problems are practical. Some military observers say that a no-fly zone would be of limited use in Libya, since Col Gaddafi

Monday

James Forsyth

Cameron: military action not out of the question in Libya

The government’s game of catch-up on Libya continues apace. David Cameron came to the Commons to update the House on the current situation. His main message was now that we have the vast majority of our citizens out, we can have a policy. Indeed, the government is today openly admitting that it was hamstrung last week by the continuing presence of a large number of British nationals in Tripoli. Cameron told the House that ‘we do not in any way rule out the use of military assets’; a dramatic shift from the tone of his entourage on last week’s trip. At the moment, the main military option on the table

Sunday

Daniel Korski

Keep calm and carry on

The Libya crisis looked like it would prove the critics of the government’s Strategic Defence and Security Review right. Was it not the case that the HMS Cumberland, now seen as crucial for the evacuation of British nationals, would soon be decommissioned. And would the Harriers not prove useful in a potential intervention? Coupled with criticism that the government struggled to handle the evacuation of British nationals, it looked like the makings of a credibility-destroying theme: strategic misjudgement and tactical incompetence. But a week into the crisis, the government’s handling of the evacuation – and response to the Libyan crisis overall – looks increasingly surefooted. The UK has led the

Saturday

Peter Hoskin

What difference will sanctions make?

Slowly, haltingly, the West decides what to do about Gaddafi. The latest news is that, having broken his silence over Libya a few days ago, Barack Obama is now imposing sanctions against its despicable regime: freezing assets, blocking transactions, that sort of thing. It follows a package of sanctions, including an arms embargo, that Britain and France have proposed to the UN. Although these sanctions are better than nothing – the West shouldn’t house Gaddafi’s slush funds, nor transfer weapons in his direction – they are of limited actual worth. Yesterday, the Mad Dog was parading the parapets once again, promising death for the protestors. You suspect he is unlikely

Wednesday

James Forsyth

Act soon or face another Guernica

We now know that Libya is heading into a full on civil-war and that Gaddafi is prepared to do pretty much anything to stay in power. The former interior minister Abdel Fattah Younes al-Abid, admittedly a partial source, says that he defected after arguing with the Libyan leader over his plan to bomb the rebel stronghold of Benghzai. In an ideal world, the United Nations would move to impose a no fly zone on Libya. But this is unlikely to happen. Russia and China, for obvious reasons, want to uphold the principle of non-interference in another state’s affairs even if that state is brutally repressing its own people.   This

Tuesday

David Blackburn

More trouble for the government over the military covenant

The news that serving soldiers have been given notice by email has been met fury from ministers. Liam Fox has answered questions in the House about this story and why 100 RAF pilots discovered they were redundant in yesterday’s newspapers. Fox was both livid and contrite, decrying the ‘completely unacceptable’ practices and reiterating the MoD’s ‘unreserved apologies’. He announced that an internal inquiry has been called, which Patrick Mercer believes will expose negligence among those officers who manage personnel. Fox also conceded that the sacked pilots, many of whom were ‘hours from obtaining qualification’, cannot be retained in some form of volunteer reserve, such is the squeeze on the MoD.

Thursday

David Blackburn

A military coup in Egypt?

Reports from Tahrir Square are very confused. There is a firm body of opinion who doubt the ‘tough cookie’ Mubarak would have stood aside. Many suspect that today’s announcements are a ruse designed to strengthen his position. As Richard Ottaway put it, ‘Ill believe it when I see it.’ Meanwhile, others report the Mubarak has been pushed or ‘been resigned’. The Foreign Office is understood to be preparing a contingency plan for what is being described as “a soft military coup”. For the first time ever, the senior council of the military is meeting in open session without the President or his representatives: a very provocative or very risky move

Wednesday

Daniel Korski

A legion of attacks

Some attacks hurt more than others. And the attack launched by Chris Simpkins, the director-general of the Royal British Legion, on the government’s approach to the military covenant will be particularly painful. For it comes after a Defence Review that left few happy, and when the nation is engaged in a war from which many feel the Prime Minister is a bit too keen to withdraw. Speaking to The Times, the Royal Legion chief said plans set out in the Armed Forces Bill requiring the Ministry of Defence to publish an annual report on the unwritten pact between society and the military were not the same as writing it into